Math-Stats Dept meeting
Nov 21, 2014
1205--1255
M-303
Present: Boyes, Kovacs, Noffsinger, Papin (by phone), Steverson, Thoo, Wardlaw
Minutes
=======
1) CSLOs
a) Boyes reports that Noffisinger has added (and will continue to update) our CSLOs to the Math-Stats Dept Web site.
b) We discuss how to divide up the Math 50 and Math 52 CSLOs among the respective A/B courses. We agree supplement the existing CSLOs for Math 50 and 52 in the respective A/B courses, specifically, we should add a CSLO on the review material in both Math 50A and Math 52A.
c) Boyes presented options for which questions on this semester's Math 52 common final exam should be used for the CSLO assessment. We agree to use her suggestions.
d) Boyes reported that the SLO Committee is requiring that we establish a rotation for assessing our CSLOs and PSLOs. We have already established a CSLO rotation for some of our courses (for Math 50, 52, 110, and 111), and are continuing to do so for the rest as we review and revise their CSLOs. We have not yet established a rotation for assessing our PSLOs, however.
We have six PSLOs.
Computation 1: Solve equations and inequalities.
Computation 2: Perform operations on mathematical objects (e.g. numbers, expressions, functions, matrices).
Computation 3: Graph equations, functions, inequalities.
Critical Thinking 1: Solve applied problems using mathematical or statistical methods.
Critical Thinking 2: Prove identities and theorems.
Critical Thinking 3: Apply definitions, notation and properties of mathematical concepts.
We agreed that make the cycle of assessing the PSLOs coincide with the cycle for the full Program Review (PR; every four years). We decided to assess two PSLOs per year (one Computation and one Critical Thinking CSLO per year following the order listed). We would compile the data at the end of the fall semester, and discuss them in the spring. That would get us through all six PSLOs in three years, and we would spend the fourth year reviewing all of the data from the preceding cycle for the upcoming full PR.
e) We adopted the CSLOs for Math 25 that Boyes presented at the last meeting. These are the CSLOs that we adopted.
Math 25 SLOs
1. Translate word problems into systems of equations and solve those using matrix methods.
2. Translate word problems into linear programming problems and solve those using the Simplex algorithm.
3. Calculate present and future values of account balances, loans and annuities.
4. Solve enumeration problems by applying basic combinatorial principles.
f) We modified the CSLOs for Math 9 that Boyes presented at the last meeting. These are the CSLOs that we adopted.
Math 9 SLOs
1. Graph a function using the first and second derivatives.
2. Solve an application problem that involves the marginal cost, marginal profit, or marginal revenue.
3. Solve an application problem that involves optimization.
4. Find an equation of the tangent line to the graph of a function.
5. Find the area bounded by the graphs of two functions. One of the functions may be f(x) = 0.
6. Solve an application problem that involves integration.
2) Math 50A and 52A in Fall 2015
Thoo asked if we should offer two sections of Math 50A and 52A in Fall 2015 (that would feed into one section of 50B and 52B in the next semester). We agreed that we should. Thoo will inform Stemmann.
3) We discussed whether we should set a cut score for Math 17 Discrete Mathematics. Some arguments were made against setting a cut score (based mainly on the fact that the current placement test does not distinguish between algebra skills and trigonometry skills, and that it seems unlikely that the test can certify competency in any set of mathematics skills). Some arguments were made for setting a cut score (based mainly on the fact that it would seem to be inconsistent to have a cut score for Math 1A, but not for Math 17, for then a student who scored well enough to enter Math 1A without taking Math 20 or 21 would nevertheless have to take Math 20 before taking Math 17).
We decided (not unanimous) that we shall set a cut score for Math 17 at the same level as Math 1A. It will remain for a future cut-score validation to determine if this is appropriate. Thoo will communicate this to Armand Brunhoeber.
---------------------------End of the Meeting--------------------------